Congress demanding answers about potential wrong-doing and a president stonewalling while claiming that executive privilege is being threatened, and so he's trying to offer half-assed compromises that will leave his people the option of lying privately with no chance of consequences instead of lying publicly and facing perjury?
Am I the only person who's flashing back to Nixon/Watergate?
Because if that's really what we're seeing here, then the next thing to happen should be that there's a Deep Throat who conveys to a newspaper reporter/reporters a chain of evidence that leads directly to the President, i.e., that the President ordered the attorneys fired because they weren't in lockstep with his policies and furthermore ordered his AG to lie about it. I think we're going to see the questions being raised of just how much the President knew, when he knew it, and what he did about it. And something tells me Bush doesn't want us to know the answers to those questions.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at March 22, 2007 12:23 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingConsidering how utterly clueless and incompetent Bush has proven himself to be, I suspect the question will actually be "What didn't he know and when didn't he know it?"
From your lips, m'man ... from your lips.
The other question: these days, if a modern-day Deep Throat DID surface, would they be listened to? Or would it be dismissed as just one disgruntled opinion about an overblown personnel matter?
TWL
I remember watching West Wing and how the staff would declare, "I serve at the pleasure of the President."
Seems to me that he can have anyone fired that he wants to for whatever reason he deems necessary. Those attorneys weren't in a union were they?
It depends on the reasons for the firing. For instance, in a standard work for hire situation, which is what most people work under, you can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. However, certain reasons are off limits, such as you can't fire someone for being African American or Jewish.
The U.S. Attorneys can be fired for any reason or no reason at all. Where they are getting into a sticky area is that the attorneys fired, for the most part, were attorneys who had heavily investigated corrupt Republicans (Lam in San Diego) or had refused to push forward bogus investigations of Democrats (Iglesias in New Mexico and McKay in Washington). This use of the Justice Department as a de facto arm of the Republican Party, while maybe not per se illegal (depending on how the obstruction of justice statutes are written), is definitely corrupt, and is the type of things impeachment was made for.
"Seems to me that he can have anyone fired that he wants to for whatever reason he deems necessary."
Then why lie about it? Which is what they have not only done, but are fighting to protect their opportunity to continue to do?
Furthermore, they don't work for the president.
I'm reasonably sure there's such a thing as "wrongful termination," especially when someone is fired without just cause. And I'm pretty sure firing someone simply because they don't like the president's politics doesn't quality as just cause.
Why do I feel that way?
Just 'cause.
PAD
Sure, Bush has the legal right to fire them if he doesn't like the color of their tie.
However, if they were fired as part of a larger effort to both shield republicans from prosecution and accelerate indictments against democrats in order to influence the election, as it looks like it was, then someone has got some 'splaining to do.
What seems to have been forgotten is that the president is not a king. He is an employee of WE THE PEOPLE. And, as his employers, we have the right to demand an explanation as to why they were fired.
If justice in this country becomes less about who is guilty and who is innocent and instead about who belongs to what party, then justice has been perverted and needs to be remedied.
And don't tell me that Clinton fired all 93 at that start of his term. Replacing all political appointees is SOP for the start of any new administration. That's completely different than firing a handful midterm because they wouldn't play ball.
The real question Congress should demand an answer for is, if these eight were fired because they weren't considered "loyal Bushies", what kind of faustian bargain did the other 85 make in order to keep their jobs?
Seems to me that he can have anyone fired that he wants to for whatever reason he deems necessary.Then why lie about it? Which is what they have not only done, but are fighting to protect their opportunity to continue to do?
The firings aren't illegal, because they happen at the beginning of every new presidential administration. Then the new administration submits a list of replacements for congress to approve. Gonzalez tried to take advantage of a provision in the patriot act to hire a set of replacements without congressional approval.
Gonzalez was under oath when he said the firings weren't political -- and a crapload of memos and emails are being reviewed that seem to suggest his testimony was deceptive.
If congressional subpoenas are issued, it's the attorney general's office that enforces them. If congress doesn't like how the attorney general's office is enforcing its subpoenas, the issue goes to a judge.
So:
To me the problem is that Bush is fighting for the right of his "advisors" (we call them "yes-men" or "enablers") not to lie, but for their right to tell him that it's OK to do illegal / immoral / unconstitutional acts.
The claim of "this is OK because it happens at the beginning of every administration" is just an irrelevant red herring, as this is not the beginning of the Bush administration. It's 6 years into his administration, and these firings are, as has been mentioned very suspect because they only target those that either are investigating corrupt Republicans, or refused to issue premature indictments against Democrats in the 2006 elections in order to help Republicans gain some ground.
Democratic Underground has a great fact sheet about the misinformation being spread around and the truth debunking those lies. It can be found here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x463761
Posted by Peter David at March 22, 2007 01:31 PM
Then why lie about it? Which is what they have not only done, but are fighting to protect their opportunity to continue to do?
There may be plenty of reasons why they want to sweep this under the rug, even if it isn't the least bit illegal. Bush's popularity ratings are at an embarrassing low, especially for a wartime president. The last thing he needs is something else to be embarrassed about.
Posted by Peter David at March 22, 2007 01:31 PM
And I'm pretty sure firing someone simply because they don't like the president's politics doesn't quality as just cause.
Actually, these firings were made possible under an obscure provision of the Patriot Act. So, yeah, the Prez not liking their politics may be enough under the law to justify the firings. I'm not saying that's a good thing... I'm just saying that's U.S. law as currently written.
I think it's highly unlikely any laws have been broken, and I think drawing parallels to Watergate is a bit of an overreach. On the other hand, I think there's definitely something stinky going on here.
The irony of all of this? One of the fired attorneys was interviewed on NPR and stated that he could have lived with being removed from his position for purely political reasons. After all, he was a political appointee. He knew that and could live with it. But he's livid that his professional competence has been impugned. He claims he never had a bad performance review yet his firing was portrayed as performance-based.
The thing is the White House did not want to make an admit say this. "We fired them for political reasons and cronyism." If they did that all congress would have oversight and say "Yup, Bush did cronyism and we did not like it."
Bush can fire them for any reason (Ex. Not giving a personal foot massage.) but it is having that reason public is what they wanted to avoid, which made things a lot worse.
The thing that made things worse also is trying to go around Congress with "temporary appointments" that become perminant.
Now THIS discussion is sounding extremely familiar.
Not to Watergate per se -- as has been pointed out, the firings themselves are quite probably legal.
But this tendency for Bush to (a) act like he's king, (b) make every single decision based on political gain, then (c) claim that he's not doing either of the above while making it REALLY DAMN CLEAR in attitude and likely-unconscious phrase that that's precisely what he's doing ... that we've seen before. It's becoming the rule rather than the exception.
I'm kinda looking forward to the subpoena fight, actually. As I've seen people elsewhere point out, he's effectively kicked Congress in the nuts with his "offer" re: Rove and Miers, and if the Democrats don't put on some steel-toed boots and kick right back they're not worth the control of Congress we gave them in November.
Anyone have any thoughts on Edwards' announcement today?
TWL
The real issue is that Bush does not want to be held accountable for anything. His entire administration has worked consistantly in order to skirt any provision that might require them to explain their actions or ask permission from Congress or any court. This would have been a non-scandal had Gonzo simply gone before Congress and said, "Yeah, we fired them because we wanted people more in tune with our agenda and that's our right." Instead, he lied and then they lied again.
Well, I wish Mrs. Edwards a speedy recovery from her cancer.
And, of course, awaiting the inevitable personal attacks from the Hannity and Rush crowd about how Edwards is a horrible person for not dropping out.
One article I read (http://jeffrey-feldman.typepad.com/frameshop/2007/03/frameshop_the_5.html#more)noted in Bush's speech 5 words he continually dropped in order to frame the debate:
1. resignation - sounds less controversial than firing
2. leadership - sounds better than "we wanted loyal Bushies"
3. explanation, and 4. incomplete - to obscure the fact there was deceit and equivocation
5. fishing - to make the inquery seem completely partisan
It'll be interesting to see how closely Fox's talking points will match up.
I read the same article, Sasha, and I think it's somewhat tough to rebut. I'll be interested as well to see how well it plays.
TWL
But he's livid that his professional competence has been impugned. He claims he never had a bad performance review yet his firing was portrayed as performance-based.
I think the same guy was on my local talk station. HE said they've recanted that he had a bad performance. But he said he's staying in the fight because his colleagues are also being besmirched.
Something he said that I found almost unbelievable was that when he came into the job, Ashcroft made it clear that political affilations stop at the door.
Something he said that I found almost unbelievable was that when he came into the job, Ashcroft made it clear that political affilations stop at the door.
Maybe that's the real reason Ashcroft left, to make room for a for pliable AG.
Anyone have any thoughts on Edwards' announcement today?
It seems clear to me that Ms. Edwards wants him to run and, that being the case, he should.
The prognosis, if it's what it seems to be, is very poor. I can't help but suspect that this will ultimately be very detrimental to his campaign but I doubt that is foremost in his mind. I'm no fan of his prospects to be a good president but he's clearly a genuinely good family man.
And, of course, awaiting the inevitable personal attacks from the Hannity and Rush crowd about how Edwards is a horrible person for not dropping out.
They must not be at the National review:
Jonah Goldberg- I am no fan of John Edwards as a politician, but given the facts as we know them, I don't see anything wrong whatsoever with him staying in the race.
Kathryn Jean Lopez- Disagree as we do, Elizabeth Edwards really cares about politics. I believe she believes in Edwards 2008 and wants him to run and that's why he's staying in.
Mona Charen- Very genuine, affecting. Mrs. E is a very impressive person. Let's keep them in our prayers (for an easy treatment and full recovery — not for political success needless to say).
Byron York-- No, there won't be a suspension of the Edwards campaign. I think most observers would agree that today's news conference was a very impressive performance, both by John and Elizabeth Edwards.
One reason why I find the NRO online a good place to visit.
Want another parallel to Nixon?
They release hundreds of emails regarding the termination of the attorneys...
...and there is a 16 (should have been 18) day "gap" between the emails...
"Scrutiny Intensifies On 16 Day Gap In Released Documents"
How can it be that there were no emails for 16 days?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/21/attorneys.email.gap/index.html?eref=rss_politics
The prognosis, if it's what it seems to be, is very poor. I can't help but suspect that this will ultimately be very detrimental to his campaign but I doubt that is foremost in his mind. I'm no fan of his prospects to be a good president but he's clearly a genuinely good family man.
I'm pretty much in agreement on this. I haven't really figured out what I think of him as a candidate, but it was clear back in '04 that he was, at a minimum, a Good Guy.
As for personal attacks ... I'm glad that none has surfaced as yet, but I won't be surprised if any do come in from the less sane counterparts of the people Bill quoted.
...and there is a 16 (should have been 18) day "gap" between the emails...
Well, it makes sense that it's a much longer time period -- after all, it takes Arlo Guthrie a lot longer to type than to sing.
(Let's see if anyone has ANY idea what that's referring to. :-)
TWL
Den, you took the words out of my mouth.
Give me my gum back, you creep.
I think the Edwards camp sounds like a class act.
As far as the other situation goes, it just reaffirms something I've said elsewhere: "Some dang fool has gone and remade the 70s!"
And, of course, awaiting the inevitable personal attacks from the Hannity and Rush crowd about how Edwards is a horrible person for not dropping out.
Those aren't going to come immediately and may not come at all. Hannity and Rush are attack-dogs in human form, but they're not stupid about it. Attacking Edwards regarding his wife at this time would only make him more sympathetic...especially sinces she's still well enough to step up on stage and say that she wants him to keep running. Even they know that attacks regarding Elizabeth Edwards will (currently) rebound on the attacker and simply make Edwards look better. People like Rush and Hannity would wait until he can be made to look bad by pointing out that Edwars not visiting her enough while she was hospitalized (for example). The last thing those guys would ever want to do is make a Democrat look good.
Den wrote: "And don't tell me that Clinton fired all 93 at that start of his term. Replacing all political appointees is SOP for the start of any new administration. That's completely different than firing a handful midterm because they wouldn't play ball."
Oh, horse patooty. Janet Reno's rationale for firing all 93 attorneys is no different than Gonzalez's was. Just as Clinton used the ace card of "executive privilege" when he was taking heat from a Republican witch hunt.
This selective indignation is a waste of everyone's time and your tax dollars. I was hoping when the Democrats took over Congress they would actually accompish something useful. Instead, they are wasting most of their time stabbing at a lame and dying duck.
Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.
No wonder nothing sweeping and positive is ever accomplished in Washington.
Janet Reno's rationale for firing all 93 attorneys is no different than Gonzalez's was.
As far as Reno never fired any attorneys general for the successful prosecution of democrats, no.
This selective indignation is a waste of everyone's time and your tax dollars.
As far as Gonzales fired any attorneys general for the successful prosecution of republicans, no.
I was hoping when the Democrats took over Congress they would actually accompish something useful.
As far as they are attempting to remove prosecutors who will refuse to enforce a congressional subpoena, they may.
Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.
Until you are the new boss, no.
Janet Reno's rationale for firing all 93 attorneys is no different than Gonzalez's was.
Which rationale would that be? Gonzales has already given several, each less credible than its predecessor.
Which rationale did Reno echo? Specifics, please.
TWL
Oh, and Rob S. -- Thanks. I'm glad to be back among cultured folk.
TWL
So, I'm sure that someone among us is enough of a Constitutional scholar to answer one nagging little question for me -
Does the President indeed have the authority to refuse to permit Congress to subpoena members of his staff? Or to set conditions on their testimony?
(Okay, so it's two questions. I'm tired, all right?)
And is this authority at all related to the precedent Gonzales once tried to cite regarding Bush's authority to use "extreme sanctions" in questioning foreign nationals? (He once pulled out the notion from British law that "the King can do no wrong" - that whatever the Sovereign does is, by definition, legal. IIRC, it was less than a day later that he retracted that statement, after someone pointed out to him that the President is not, in fact, a sovereign ruler...)
Peter,
Give me a break. If this was a Democrat president and a Republican congress, you would be arguing that the president has every right to decide the agenda of people under his administration. A president has every right to decide who is going to represent his administration, and if someone is not on the same page, they can be let go. Period. He doesn't even need a reason. This blind Bush hatred seems to have clouded your ability to reason when it comes to anything that involves the Bush administration. Read Dick Morris' recent column on this topic please. What about that representative from Louisianna who ther FBI caught taking bribes? WHat did the democrats claim? Separation of powers! Every time I hear the democrats claim to be righteously idignant, I remind myself that this is the same Party that: 1 defends Ted Kennedy (who left a girl to drown), 2. Defends Sandy Berger (who stole top security documents and stuffed them in his pants and then destroyed them. Thank God he wasn't a republican, huh, because if he was we would of never heard the end of it on Comedy Central, and the dems would have been calling for his head. As it is now Berger will get his secuirty clearance back in 3 years. Yeah, dems really care about national security). 3. Accepted more than 3 million dollars in donations from China and Korea for the 1996 elections (breaking election law). 4.Defends Gerry Studds (who actually had sex with a teenage House page). And the list could go on and on. Lisitening to the dems these days you would think the friggin' inquistion has begun agian (and maybe it has). "If you don't think like us or agree completely 100% with us you must either be converted or destroyed.". If you're honest you'll agree that the dems are way scarier in terms of trying to make everyone think just like them and are far more willing to use force to impose their will on others. You just happen to agree with them so you're willing to look the other way.
Oh, and for the record, I'm libertarian. I just wish we had more than two parties to choose from. The republicans just aren't smart enough to make me worry as much as the dems do.
Gonzales went before Congress and told them that he wouldn't terminate the US Attorneys for political reasons after he had fired them for political reasons. For that reason, I want him to resign.
But the last thing I want him to do before leaving office is to indict Valerie Plame for lying to Congress. She testified last week under oath that someone else pushed the idea her husband going to Africa, not her. However, several people at the grand jury testified that it WAS her doing. Someone lied under oath, and it seems highly probable to have been her.
Rudy,
A president has every right to decide who is going to represent his administration, and if someone is not on the same page, they can be let go. Period. He doesn't even need a reason.
Apparently you haven't been reading very closely. I haven't seen anybody, Peter included, who disagrees with that statement. The problem, as so often seems to be the case, is that Gonzales didn't say "yeah, we fired 'em cause we f***ing well felt like it." He has listed an ever-growing and never-convincing set of straw-man reasons.
Some of those apparently-false reasons were given under oath, if memory serves (though it's late enough that I may be misremembering that). Assuming my memory is right, though, I think the Attorney General committing perjury for nothing other than the political gain of "his" president is in fact a significant problem.
Of course, if you want to turn it into another pissing match, you have every right. My metaphorical bladder is nice and full.
TWL
Tim,
That's what I mean when I say the republicans are just too dumb to worry about. I totally agree with you. I agree that they are their own worse enemy and invite these attacks by being such boneheads. However, I don't think it is good to pick a fight on every issue because it appears to me that opposing the administartion has become for many, simply a knee jerk reaction. And as much as it may pain people to hear, even a stopped clock is right twice a day (assuming you're not on military time, 'cause then it would be just once a day).
It does sound familiar. Lame duck President. Congress in the hands of the opposite party. Lots of investigations about the administration instead of doing what they said they would do while running for office. Yep. Almost like it was 90's all over again.
Well, at least the democrats haven't started investigating how the White House responds to fan mail to Barney the Dog.
The republicans actually did investigate that re: Socks the Cat.
What about that representative from Louisianna who ther FBI caught taking bribes? WHat did the democrats claim? Separation of powers!
Maybe you should pay better attention. Republican Dennis Hastert made that argument.
As others have noted, while they can fire them for any reason, the issue is now that they lied under oath about the reasons for it. Remember lying under oath?
Oh yeah, that's only a crime when a democrat does it now.
Silly me.
Oh, horse patooty. Janet Reno's rationale for firing all 93 attorneys is no different than Gonzalez's was.
Given that Gonzales has given at least three different reasons now, none of which was the one Janet Reno used (ie, it's a new administration), no.
BTW, you are aware that Bush let all of the Clinton appointees go in 2001, just as Reagan let all of Carter's go in 1981, Bush 41 let all of Reagan's go in 1989, etc., Right?
Gonzales did not fire these eight for the same reason as those others did. They were fired because they had the audacity to put their duty to the law above their duty to help the GOP win elections.
Just as Clinton used the ace card of "executive privilege" when he was taking heat from a Republican witch hunt.
And I seem to recall several republicans saying that executive privilege was a load of bull and was just an excuse to cover things up, including some guy named Tony Snow who wrote a whole op-ed piece about it. Now he's defending it.
If it was wrong for Clinton, then it's wrong for Bush. Unless, like perjury, it's one of those rules that are only illegal when democrats break them, of course.
People like Rush and Hannity would wait until he can be made to look bad by pointing out that Edwars not visiting her enough while she was hospitalized (for example).
Which will be about five seconds after she goes in for her first chemo appointment.
Of course, if Edwards were a true bastard like (just to pick someone at random), Gingrich, he could use that time to serve her with divorce papers.
Posted by Tim Lynch
The other question: these days, if a modern-day Deep Throat DID surface, would they be listened to? Or would it be dismissed as just one disgruntled opinion about an overblown personnel matter?
Off to the Gulag ... i mean, Guantanamo ... with him.
Posted by Jonathan (the other one)
So, I'm sure that someone among us is enough of a Constitutional scholar to answer one nagging little question for me -Does the President indeed have the authority to refuse to permit Congress to subpoena members of his staff? Or to set conditions on their testimony?
I rhink the answer to that is "sort of but not exactly."
That is, if it's a gen-you-wine security matter, no-one can force them to testify about it; this is what Nixon and now Bush Minor attmepted to claim "executive privilege" over - that a President's advisors would hesitate to give hime advice that might make them look bad if they were going to have to testify about it later.
Going off at an apparent tengent, here, the NHTSA is planning to institute a ruling that will shield automakers from having to disclose defects in their cars and if they've been sued over injuries arising from such - under the clause that shields "trade secrets"; the rationale is that if people knew all the Bad Stuff that an automaker's been caught at, it would hurt them competitively.
See a parallell with the Presidential advisors there?
My advice to both automakers and Presidential advisors is "Don't do anything that would make you look bad in the first place, and then you won't have to hide it..."
TWL wrote: "Which rationale did Reno echo? Specifics, please."
Here's what "Time" wrote about the Clinton administration's attorney dismissals back in 1993:
"She (Reno) requested the prompt resignation of all 93 U.S. Attorneys around the country "to build a team" that represents "my views" and those of the President. Although expected eventually, the move triggered alarms at the Washington prosecutorial office, which has been probing the finances of a key Democratic floor captain, House Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski. Reno insists there was "no linkage"' between the dismissals and the probe, which insiders say will continue."
The fact is, all of this bruhaha is just a continuation of what is just a never-ending partisan political con game.
The Democrats are no different than the Republicans at spinning the wheels of government -- creating elaborate rathole diversions -- when there is really no useful legislating going on.
And the argument that Reno's dismissals were more righteous that Gonzalez's because she was up front about it and he acted like a kid with his hand caught in a cookie jar is just plain silly. The end result and intention is identical: They want guys in the positions who, when they say jump, their guys dutifully say, "How high?"
According to "Countdown" this evening, Rush Limbaugh immediately suggested that Edwards would wait to see if the announcement today would result in a bump in the polls. If not, then he would be exiting the race. Earned Rush top honors for "Worst Person..." today.
And the argument that Reno's dismissals were more righteous that Gonzalez's because she was up front about it and he acted like a kid with his hand caught in a cookie jar is just plain silly. The end result and intention is identical: They want guys in the positions who, when they say jump, their guys dutifully say, "How high?"
I don't think the distinctions are particularly silly. Yes, Reno requested that they all be dismissed -- as has been pointed out repeatedly, that's not uncommon for the start of an administration, and is something the Bush team did as well.
These particular firings were (a) specifically targeted, and (b) firing members OF "their own team" who had already been put in place. That already makes them qualitatively different -- not necessarily better or worse, but visibly and obviously of a different category. Gonzales knows that. Bush knows that. Everybody and their pet cat can see it, which is why Gonzales' denials are falling so flat.
TWL
Ouch! All I remember about Watergate was it pre-empted the Brady Bunch reruns with my lunch ( a terrible thing when you're 8).
Whatever happened to "The Buck Stops Here" ?
This situation differs from Watergate in one crucial area: No crime has been committed. What started the whole Watergate situation was a break-in at the Watergate Hotel. What has started this new anti-Bush push is something perfectly legal: the firing of US Attorneys. Eight of them. It's been a two year process thus far and some of them have terms expiring anyway. Contrast this with Bill Clinton, who fired all 93 US Attorneys when he first took office. Nobody in the media cared.
What the Democrats want here is another show trial so they can fish for process crimes (i.e. Scooter Libby). They want to put Republicans in a position where they can be accused of lying under oath publically when they shouldn't have been called up to the Hill anyway. It is up the the Democrats to prove guilt first... and no one can find any crime here. Democrats want this bad. They want to get conflicting statements from Bush Administration officials on forgettable or insignificant details so they can continue their attempts to damage said administration. (Strange that they didn't seem to mind that Valerie Plame lied under oath last week, but I guess since that didn't fit their agenda...)
Darin
Nobody in the media cared.
Bull. Glenn Greenwald did a great job of digging up all the media carping about Clinton's carping.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/19/us_attorneys/index.html
Of course, when Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II did the same thing at the start of their administrations, there really was no media carping.
"She (Reno) requested the prompt resignation of all 93 U.S. Attorneys around the country "to build a team" that represents "my views" and those of the President. Although expected eventually, the move triggered alarms at the Washington prosecutorial office, which has been probing the finances of a key Democratic floor captain, House Ways and Means chairman Dan Rostenkowski. Reno insists there was "no linkage"' between the dismissals and the probe, which insiders say will continue."
And yet, the prosecution of Rostnekowski continued, despite the routine beginning of term replacements, and he was eventually convicted. How about that?
"Of course, when Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II did the same thing at the start of their administrations, there really was no media carping."
Clinton was the first president to fire all 93 upon taking the office. Again, he did not receive the kind of media coverage that the current president is regarding US Attorney appointments.
"Maybe you should pay better attention. Republican Dennis Hastert made that argument."
Again, I agree, the republicans aren't einsteins when it comes to politics. However, I beleive that had it been a republican caught taking bribes by the FBI, we would never find a democrat, especially one in a leadership position, running to the defense of that republican. The dems run a tighter ship and are far more organized. Sometimes it just doesn't seem like a fair fight. It makes me think of the relationship between Garfield and Odie. All Odie (repubs) wants to do is lick Garfireld to death, and all Garfield(dems) lives for is to kick Odie off the table. I always liked the ones where Garfield met someone his intellectual equal like the wise cracking scale. I wish we had an alternative here in the US, but all we get stuck with is Garfield and Odie.
And Bush II didn't get this kind of press when he replaced a bunch at the beginning of his first term, either.
Could it be because it wasn't anything particularly different than Clinton had already done? Or is that just crazy talk?
And besides, who do the US Attorneys work for, anyway? The states? The Justice Department? The Executive? Congress?
As I seem to recall, Iglesias (? I think?) was fired after having received phone calls from Congress that he "didn't answer correctly".
Who, exactly, do these guys really work for?
Because I could have sworn they didn't have to answer to individual Congresspeople after they were already in place. I could, of course, be quite wrong on that score.
Clinton was the first president to fire all 93 upon taking the office.
Wrong. Reagan did it. Bush I did it. Carter did it.
Again, he did not receive the kind of media coverage that the current president is regarding US Attorney appointments.
That's because Bush isn't replacing replacing people from the previous administration. He is firing people for not being "loyal Bushies".
The dems run a tighter ship and are far more organized.
Wow. Ok.... hang on, give me a moment to try to absorb that statement.
No, still does not compute.
Are we receiving posts from the Mirror Universe...?
No President before Bill Clinton fired ALL of the US Attorneys. No media outcry when he did that. Now we have 8 who are being fired. Big deal. No crime there... even if it was politically motivated. It is not unheard of for a president to replace the US Attorney's with like-minded people. Again, no crime in that.
"The dems run a tighter ship and are far more organized."
Thanks, I needed a good laugh this morning.
No President before Bill Clinton fired ALL of the US Attorneys. No media outcry when he did that. Now we have 8 who are being fired. Big deal. No crime there... even if it was politically motivated. It is not unheard of for a president to replace the US Attorney's with like-minded people. Again, no crime in that.
Wrong, if it interferes with ongoing investigations or for partisan purposes.
And it actually is a big deal. No president has fired eight prosecutors mid-term before (usually, maybe one or two).
Though I would say that the Administration would be in less trouble if they were upfront about it and actually said it was for not following the program, instead of saying it was for competency (generally, for the latter, you really ought to have some documentation for poor performance, as opposed to having commendations for service).
Well, but, they already "were" like-minded ... it seems these were replaced because they weren't quite "like minded enough". Apparently. Which is still fair game on its own. Most states have "at will" employment.
I personally find it questionable if they're being fired for not bringing prosecutions that other Republicans -- say, in Congress -- want them to pursue... especially if the Attorney in question doesn't think they have a case. Since when is it Congress's job to tell prosecutors who and who not to prosecute, exactly?
Darin, repeating a lie doesn't make it true. The fact is, Reagan fired all of the attorneys.
"The Reagan administration, for example, acted in its own interests much the same as the Clinton administration had in its when it sought the prompt removal of all U.S. Attorneys from the previous administration, notwithstanding the fact that most of the persons whose nominations were to be submitted had not been selected and many interim persons would be required."
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/208045.htm
And I've already covered that there was a media outcry over Clinton's firing of all 93, so you can stop lying at any time now. Or least read some of the other posts on this blog before you reply again.
I have a question for the Bush defenders: Why is it that every time this administration gets caught doing something that looks sleazy, the first meme to get circulated is "Clinton did it"? I thought you were supposed to be the morally superior ones. Why use someone you profess to hate as your barometer for ethical behavior?
And just for fun, here's what Wikipedia (take it for what it's worth) has to say on firings of previous administrations:
"At the beginning of each presidential term, it is traditional for anyone occupying a "political office" to turn in a signed letter of resignation. For example, when President George W. Bush took office in 2001, he received the resignations from 91 of 93 sitting U.S. attorneys.[70] A political office is generally considered one that the occupant "serves at the pleasure of the President." If there is a new President from a different party, it is expected that all of the resignations would be accepted.[71] The attorneys are then replaced by new political appointees, typically from the new President's party.[72] Presidents Reagan and Clinton immediately dismissed all 93 US attorneys when they came to office. Other Presidents have installed their team by transitioning in replacements gradually as the tenure expired for the preceding administrations US Attorneys.[73]"
So, even when Bush 41 took office, he replaced 91 out of 93 US Attorneys even though his administration didn't involve a change in party.
So, can we put the lie that Clinton's beginning term firings were something new to rest now?
I serve in a partisan position in state government. We are 'at-will' employees and can be relieved of our duties at any time. All non-civil service employees of government are in the same boat. Our fortunes rise and fall based on the political climate of the time. In my state, the legislature flipped from Republican to Democrat controlled. Half the people in my support division were layed off and I took a 20% pay cut. That's just the way the system is and we are fully aware of it.
When you are terminated, the legal counsel is present and no reason is giving for your removal. If they give a reason, then you might have some grounds for a lawsuit. The key point of at-will employment is that no reason needs to be given. That's why this attorney situation is so murky. The President has the right to remove these US attorneys. He doesn't have to give a reason. However, if the Democrats can find any documents to prove they were eliminated for political reasons, then there might be something worth chewing on. Probably no legal recourse for the attorneys but just a political game to be played out in the newspapers.
All political employees are aware of how the game is run. That's why in 99% of these cases, no reason is given for your termination. In my opinion this is the weakest 'scandal' that I've witnessed in D.C. in the last 20 years.
All things considered, what should probably be a bigger concern is not that the 8 were fired, but who replaced them.
And this wouldn't even have to be about politics itself, but about Bush's history of cronyism and complete lack of qualifications for the jobs said cronies are getting.
Btw, the House voted 218-212 to set a September 2008 deadline for Iraq. Good for 218 members of the House to stand up and show that you do indeed have some power in this government.
I am in a civil service position in state government and I'm well aware that the political appointees can be fired for any reason. But the issue is not whether the fired attorneys have a grievance, it's whether they were fired for reasons that may include who they were and were not prosecuting.
If Bush or Gonzales had just said from the beginning, "the administration has decided it would be better served by these replacements," there'd be no issue or at least not as a big of one or if they had staggered the dismissals instead of making all at once right after the election. Instead, they gave obviously bogus reasons and then compounded it by lying about the role people like Rove or Gonzales played in the firing.
I don't know if lying is just reflexive for this administration or what, but when you lie, it raises all kinds of questions. What they did may not be illegal, but it looks sleazy.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at March 23, 2007 01:36 PM
Btw, the House voted 218-212 to set a September 2008 deadline for Iraq. Good for 218 members of the House to stand up and show that you do indeed have some power in this government.
Yes, but... how much good does it do? My understanding is that the resolution is "non-binding." Even if it was "binding," Senate Republicans wouldn't let a similar resolution come up for a vote.
And then there's the ultimate question... even if a binding resolution setting a withdrawal date passed both houses of Congress, can the Congress revoke the authorization to wage a war once that authorization has been given? A showdown between the president and Congress on that issue would likely trigger one of the biggest Constitutional crises in our nation's history.
I seem to be in a small minority here: I think it was stupid to invade Iraq but now that we're there I think it would be equally stupid to pull out precipitously. A failed state in Iraq would have ripple effects in a region of the world where there are already threats to our national security.
Rather than setting arbitrary withdrawal dates, I'd like to see Congress put pressure on the President to change his strategy to include a full-on diplomatic "blitz" to grapple with the political problems that are at the root of much of the violence in Iraq. This war requires both a political and a military approach.
Unfortunately, I think the President is hell-bent on "staying the course" and the Congress is hell-bent on "get out now." I believe both options are equally bad. Unless Washington is gripped by a sudden outbreak of wisdom, I fear that no matter who is in power the wrong decisions will continue to be made with respect to the Iraq Debacle.
"Give me a break. If this was a Democrat president and a Republican congress, you would be arguing that the president has every right to decide the agenda of people under his administration."
Uh...no. I wouldn't. See, that's what I love: No matter how many times I slam the Democrats for shortcomings, people try to assault negative comments about the Bush administration by saying that I'd be cutting Democrats tremendous slack if the situation were reversed.
The fact of the matter is that I wouldn't be any more tolerant of obfuscation and trying to avoid testifying under oath for a Democrat than I would for a Republican, and my track record backs me up on that. But why stick to facts when you've got your opinion instead? Why accept what I say when you know my mind so much better?
PAD
Posted by: Den at March 23, 2007 12:38 PM
And I've already covered that there was a media outcry over Clinton's firing of all 93, so you can stop lying at any time now.
I just know I'm gonna regret this...
Den, I'm sorry, but that statement sounds not unlike something Robert Preston would say. Darin may be wrong, but you do not and cannot know his state of mind from his blog posts. Therefore it makes the most sense to give him the benefit of the doubt, and presume he is sincere but doesn't have his facts straight.
And in fairness, I haven't read anything from Darin that personally insulting to anyone.
I always laugh these days when I hear people complain about the rancor in Washington, D.C. Because in my experience everyday people are just as rancorous when they discuss politics, myself included. I guess our politicans come by it honestly, then.
Actually, the House bill is a binding spending measure, but given that the GOP successfully blocked the Senate from even debating on a nonbinding resolution, the result is the same. This is merely a symbolic gesture.
Congress may be able to rescind the war authorization, but they can say that after such-and-such a date, they just aren't going to pay for it. I think fall of 2008 is fine for a deadline, if it is coupled with continued pressure on Bush to get a diplomatic blitz going. If Bush can't get his act together and fix it by then, well, it's going to up to his successor to deal with it anyway.
In other words, his successor is going to have to deal with anyway, no matter what Congress tries to do.
"Who, exactly, do these guys really work for?"
Isn't it supposed to be the taxpayer?
OK, OK, you can all stop laughing now. :p
"I thought you were supposed to be the morally superior ones."
"moral superiority" and "politics" = two things which don't go together.
Den, I'm sorry, but that statement sounds not unlike something Robert Preston would say. Darin may be wrong, but you do not and cannot know his state of mind from his blog posts.
Fair enough, but when Darin says something and I post a source that demonstrates he was wrong and he repeats it, that says one of two things 1) He isn't reading other people's posts before he posts or 2) He read it, but rather than refute the source, he repeated something that he now knew was untrue and that is called "lying".
Maybe I should have given him the doubt and assumed that #1 is correct and he is not just parroting this week's hannitized talking points, but somehow, given what he has posted here in general, I suspect that the answer is closer to #2.
"moral superiority" and "politics" = two things which don't go together.
And yet it doesn't seem to stop many politicians from claiming that mantle, does it?
Bill Myers -
My understanding is that the resolution is "non-binding."
The AP reports it was a binding war spending bill.
can the Congress revoke the authorization to wage a war once that authorization has been given?
I would certainly hope so. Otherwise, Congress has handed over absolute power over the military to the president, and, well, that's a bad thing.
A failed state in Iraq would have ripple effects in a region of the world where there are already threats to our national security.
Iraq is already a failed state, and without deadlines, the Iraqis are just going to sit there and accomplish nothing for themselves, because they will just continue to think we're going to prop their government up. It cannot last forever, contrary to what the Iraqis and Bush think.
That, and the ripple effects have already been felt: there are more terrorists now than before we went to Iraq. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are once again on the rise, and others, such as Iran, seem to be trying to push every button they can.
I don't think there is anything to be gained by what is current an open-ended, never-ending situation in Iraq.
Meanwhile, when everything goes wrong, Bush sues for more time, and more time, and more time. And we knew once this war started that it would drag on and Bush's successor would be stuck dealing with it.
Fair enough, but when Darin says something and I post a source that demonstrates he was wrong and he repeats it, that says one of two things 1) He isn't reading other people's posts before he posts or 2) He read it, but rather than refute the source, he repeated something that he now knew was untrue and that is called "lying".
It isn't necessarily founded on a resolve to lie. I've found truth gets sacrificed where it obstructs an individual's ability to form a cogent model of reality. Fidelity to conventional wisdom will pull such people into the denial of others where the conventional wisdom observed is compatible.
The points I have made have so far not been refuted by the sources you have provided.
When Clinton took office he immediately and simultaineously fired 93 US Attorneys, which was unprecedented.
Also, there was nothing even remotely close to the media outcry then that Bush 2 is receiving now for firing his 8 attorneys. There just wasn't.
Darin
Except it's not unprecented, which you would have noted if you had actually bothered to read the sources I cited.
So, whether you're lying or just being willfully ignorant, I don't care anymore. You're shrouded.
I can't believe how cowed the country was by this Alfred E Newman wannabe, and that he got a second term. Well, I believe that had to do with a rigged election - again - but that so many people AREN'T screaming in the streets is astounding. The tide is turning though. Like Nixon before him, his own party is turning on him, and even the god-father of conservatism, William F Buckley has said that if we had a parliamentary system, Dubya would be gone - and he should be! I only hope we can impeach he and Cheney, so they can be tried, convicted, and imprison them, rather than have the bastards skate off, scott free!
Of course, if that happened, Nancy Pelosi would become the President, and totally shake up the next election!
The issue isn't that the attorneys were fired - they serve at the pleasure of the President - but how and why they were fired. If you fire someone when taking office, because they are of an opposing ideology, and unable to support your policies that's OK. As I understand it, the attorney's in question were fired, because they wouldn't engage in unethical, if not illegal activities, which is quite another.
Posted by Bill Myers
Posted by: Craig J. Ries
Btw, the House voted 218-212 to set a September 2008 deadline for Iraq. Good for 218 members of the House to stand up and show that you do indeed have some power in this government.
Yes, but... how much good does it do? My understanding is that the resolution is "non-binding." Even if it was "binding," Senate Republicans wouldn't let a similar resolution come up for a vote.
No, this one would be binding, as it's part of the emergency spending bill to pay to continue the war.
Of course, the Shrub held a nationally-televised event today to declare that it was "political theatre" (Does he even know the meaning of "irony"?) and that even if it made it through the Senate, he was going to veto it, especially since it had "pork" hung on it (like money for veterans' benefits).
Why doesn't he just sign it with a signing statement that says it doesn't apply to him?
(Or does he know just how far he could actually ride *that* horse if he tried it with a bill that actually had passed a Democratic-dominated Congress?)
I agree that if one or more of those attorneys were fired because they were investigating something that would hurt the RNC, then that needs to be looked at.
That said, Bush can fire any one of them for any reason. He'd have got less flack if he'd just fired and replaced them all instead of a select few. It's worked before.
Libertarian = Republican without the courage of his convictions.
"Clinton did it!"
----------
When will you Republicans get over it?
Guys, Guys, Guys....
Havent you figured out what I do on these political blogs yet?
I go in every once in a great-great while, make statements that I know most of you oppose and then when you throw up little links to provide your side with support, I just repeat myself. I ignore your links and just reiterate what I've said. It's what I've done every. Single. Time. Here... when there is a political thread.
Sheesh.
Darin
corionis6 said:
"In my opinion this is the weakest 'scandal' that I've witnessed in D.C. in the last 20 years."
----------
I agree that it started out as a weak scandal, but it sure has become stronger because of the lying under oath. Libby has been convicted of perjury. The entire country came to a standstill when Republicans pursued Clinton for perjury.
Havent you figured out what I do on these political blogs yet?
Most of us have, yes. That's why there are fewer and fewer people engaging in discussion with you each time, thou twit celebre.
I look forward to the time you have something serious to say and wonder why no one will talk to you.
TWL
Havent you figured out what I do on these political blogs yet?
I go in every once in a great-great while, make statements that I know most of you oppose and then when you throw up little links to provide your side with support, I just repeat myself. I ignore your links and just reiterate what I've said. It's what I've done every. Single. Time. Here... when there is a political thread.
Sheesh.
And to think those silly Native Americans worshipped the coyote as their trickster god when they could have been worshipping you.
Posted by: Darin at March 23, 2007 06:41 PM
"Havent you figured out what I do on these political blogs yet?
I go in every once in a great-great while, make statements that I know most of you oppose and then when you throw up little links to provide your side with support, I just repeat myself. I ignore your links and just reiterate what I've said. It's what I've done every. Single. Time. Here... when there is a political thread.
Sheesh."
Are you sure this post was really made by Darin? It doesn't sound like something someone will say of himself but rather like something his worse opponent would say about him.
I hope I'm wrong, since he idea that someone would take another's name in order to slur him seems to me even more distasteful and dishonest than Darin's own insistence to ignore the basic point Bush critics on this thread were making.
Well, mark your calendars, kids. The digging into the firings has turned up news that has officially driven me off the reservation:
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20070322-113047-5921r.htm
Six times. You can't prosecute an illegal immigrant until you've caught the same one SIX TIMES.
"Say, officer, how about you pass on that ticket you're writing up, and, oh, if you catch me five more times, then you can give it to me? How's that?"
I mean, we KNEW the Administration wasn't doing anything serious about the border problem, but now we have paperwork to prove it.
Posted by R.J. Carter
Six times. You can't prosecute an illegal immigrant until you've caught the same one SIX TIMES.
Actually, that's your ordinary wetback/fencejumper type illegal that's gotta be caught six times. (What do they do - dye a different toe on one foot green each time they catch him until the run out of piddies?)
Well, let's consider a couple of paragraphs from that article:
It is not clear when the memo was written, but the Justice Department reviewed the guidelines sometime after a February 2005 performance review of Carol Lam, the top federal prosecutor in San Diego from 2002 until she was fired last month. Some Republican lawmakers had complained that Mrs. Lam failed to prosecute immigration violations aggressively. The memo was released this week in response to a congressional investigation of the dismissals of eight U.S. attorneys.
Thgis woulod appear to be the prosecutor who basically ignored ordinary illegals to concentrate on the coyotes and other big fish in the illegal-immigrant racket.
This upset Republicans, because instead of having whole flocks of ordinary illegals prosecuted every week to brag about, nothing seemed to be happening. (For that matter, given who the top facilitators and coyotes sometimkes deal with to supply cheap labor, it wouldn't surprise me if the local Republicans were getting complaints from their biggest stockholders ... uhhh ... i mean "contributors".)
"There isn't enough jail space to incarcerate everyone who crosses that border," said T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council. "If everyone demanded hearing in front of an immigration judge, it would bring our system to a grinding halt in a matter of days."
And what's gonna happen after the hearing? They send him back to Mexico, and he comes back in a week or so.
What happens under the "six strikes" system? They send him back to Mexico, and he comes back in a week or so.
But we spent a lot less money and ties up a lot fewer judicial resources in the process.
Money and resources that can be used to catch and prosecute and DO Something About people who we actually can Do Something About.
Interesting. Now, since that was released during the investigation of the firing of Carol Lam, US Attorney in San Diego, CA (and responsible for the prosecution and conviction of Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham [R - CA] on bribery and corruption charges), did she use the same guidelines as the attorneys in Texas, or is this yet another attempt to distract the public from the story in question?
I am sorry to interrupt the political discussions but I have a question for PAD. I have just finished reading (for the third time) your Babylon 5 trilogy and was wondering with the new dvds in the works and hopefully re-newed interest, if there would be any chance of new novels. I realize that it is really early, but I was wondering if that would even be a chance??
James
>>"moral superiority" and "politics" = two things which don't go together.
>And yet it doesn't seem to stop many politicians from claiming that mantle, does it?
No, it doesn't. The last four Canadian federal administrations have all claimed - during the elections - that they'd be different [read: more ethical and trustworthy] from the last batch. The ONLY way in which they turned out to be different, was the increasing speed with which they proved otherwise.
>You can't prosecute an illegal immigrant until you've caught the same one SIX TIMES.
Someone send that to Billary's supporters, reminding them of how that hypocrite complained about Canada's "porous border security". As though she (and the U.S.) had anything to teach anyone on that particular subject. Feh.
You know, it is rather entertaining watching the Dem's chasing their own tails. Looking for that mythical sword that will slay the dread President George. Making things up while ignoring the past.
After the complete idiocy of the Plame leak(and anyone who even tries to claim it was a White House plot is willfully ignoring what is now clearly known), we start back up yet once again.
I know, the Republicans tried this with Clinton. Look how far that got us.
The Bush administration has many faults, but lack of integrity is not one of them (at least as a rule). The blatant hypocrisy of the House and Senate Democrats is frustrating--and amusing. But at the end of the day, this too will pass.
If the Democratic leadership had any wisdom at all, they would treat Bush as irrelevant and focus on accomplishing something beneficial for the country. Oh, wait, that would mean raising our taxes, spending our money on pork (yes, like the Republicans were doing--can't argue with you there), and passing stupid laws about the big bad wolf of global warming. So maybe yet another pointless investigation over something that doesn't really matter IS a good thing.
Iowa Jim
According to "Countdown" this evening, Rush Limbaugh immediately suggested that Edwards would wait to see if the announcement today would result in a bump in the polls. If not, then he would be exiting the race. Earned Rush top honors for "Worst Person..." today.
Shocking, I know. Rush and Hannity are two of the most despicable human beings on the face of the earth today. I think they're both physically incapable of viewing anything except how it might benefit the republicans politically.
BTW, he's the video from Countdown:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Download/15597/1/Countdown-WW-Edwards-Limbaugh.wmv
The Bush administration has many faults, but lack of integrity is not one of them (at least as a rule).
BWHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAH!!!!!
Gasp.
Wheeze.
Thank you, Jim. I haven't had that good of a laugh in a long time. You should consider going into comedy.
Six times. You can't prosecute an illegal immigrant until you've caught the same one SIX TIMES.Actually, that's your ordinary wetback/fencejumper type illegal that's gotta be caught six times. (What do they do - dye a different toe on one foot green each time they catch him until the run out of piddies?)
They just issue a punchcard. When someone tries to collect their free coffee, they arrest them.
The Bush administration has many faults, but lack of integrity is not one of them (at least as a rule).
If you're going by resolve, then there are no betrayals -- ever -- as no one is resolved to betray a fidelity.
"Libertarian = Republican without the courage of his convictions."
Sorry, but many Libertarians were opposed to the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan from day one, when even most Democrats were calling for them.
And do you really see many Republicans fighting for gay rights and the abolition of victimless crimes like drug use and prostitution?
Not every person who calls themselves a Libertarian is an ashamed Republican. But I agree that someone that feels the need to append "I'm not a Republican" to his posts is somewhat suspicious.
But it is the Libertarian's curse to be seen as a Democrat by the Republicans, and as a Republican by the Democrats...
The Bush administration has many faults, but lack of integrity is not one of them (at least as a rule).
Funniest line of the entire thread, that one. Jim, you've still got it.
(I mean, really ... is there anyone left in the administration who anyone outside Bush's core supporters thinks has ANY integrity?)
And BTW, Jim, what exactly, "is now clearly known" about the Plame leak, in your view?
TWL
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 24, 2007 07:22 PM
After the complete idiocy of the Plame leak(and anyone who even tries to claim it was a White House plot is willfully ignoring what is now clearly known), we start back up yet once again.
What, exactly, is "clearly known?" Scooter Libby, one of the President's top aides, was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in connection with the case. There was nothing in that case that directly pointed at the President or Vice President, but nothing that exonerated them either.
Or are you referring to Robert Novak's lame defense that Ms. Plame's status as a covert operative was in question? Because that argument has been discredited by legitimate sources as partisan nonsense: http://mediamatters.org/items/200703230014
Posted by: Iowa Jim at March 24, 2007 07:22 PM
The Bush administration has many faults, but lack of integrity is not one of them (at least as a rule).
Really?
George W. Bush promised not to raise taxes, but his latest budget proposal would increase the tax burden on the middle class by making all contributions to medical insurance plans taxable. Currently, many of us can elect to have such contributions made with "pre-tax" income. His proposal would raise our taxes, no ifs, ands, or buts. But Bush calls it a "revenue" enhancement.
Also, the Bush administration is refusing to answer questions about the questionable firings of U.S. Attorneys. If there's nothing to hide, then why are they hiding behind constantly shifting explanations? Why are they stonewalling?
Bush vowed to keep Donald Rumsfeld just days before giving him the axe. Moreover, while Bush was telling us he wouldn't consider letting go of Rumsfeld, it turns out he was planning to do just that.
Bush hired an underqualified crony to run FEMA. "Heckuva Job Brownie" couldn't handle the job by any objective measure. Yes, yes, there were screw-ups at the local and state levels, but the guys at the top don't get to point fingers at the guys at the bottom. Not when the top -- the federal government -- did such a horrid job. "Heckuva Job Brownie" was a significant reason for the federal government's failure to properly react.
Bush has never given us a full accounting of the time he supposedly spent serving in the National Guard. There are gaps in the records which would indicate a strong possibility that he, y'know, didn't fulfill his commitment. He's never given us a straight answer nor offered any proof that he didn't just skip out.
Most important, Bush took us to war using evidence he either knew, or should have known, to be thinner than he claimed it to be. In fact, prior to the Iraq war, Bush's own State Department listed 45 countries where Al Qaeda was known to be active. Iraq was not on the list.
Bush has integrity? Not by any definition of the word I know.
If it makes you feel any better, I think Clinton was lacking in integrity as well. I'm angrier at Bush, however, because his lack of integrity embroiled us in an unnecessary war that has cost thousands of U.S. lives... and tens of thousands of Iraqi lives.
Sigh... by the way, before anyone bothers to point out that Media Matters is a liberal organization devoted to debunking "conservative misinformation," I'm well aware of that. I chose that article, however, because it was well-sourced.
Bottom line: Novak's defense of his atrocious outing of Plame's CIA status is garbage. Facts are facts.
I never believe anyone who says they won't raise taxes. I don't necessarily think anyone who says this is a liar, you understand, I just think that political people will say things and even if they're sincere when they said it, later on circumstances will come up, smack the person upside the head with reality, and someone's gotta pay for that.
Iowa Jim, just what, precisely, did you mean by the "big bad wolf of global warming?" I was going to list all the sources of evidence for the phenomenon, all the effects, so on, so forth, but I don't wanna clog the internet anymore than I already do. But what's wrong with passing a few laws to point people in the right direction to, say, save pretty much every species on this planet and ensure that I can send my son 20 minutes down I-95 to see historic Philadelphia in something other than a submersible?)
Although, in some neighborhoods in Philly that I've been in, that might actually be the safest way, come to think of it.
Iowa Jim, just what, precisely, did you mean by the "big bad wolf of global warming?"
It's the new strategy in the War on Global Warming: demonize it and those that say it's happening.
Earlier today, I read a post on another site where a conservative referred to global warming as "psycho-liberal propoganda".
You can't make this kind of stuff up.
And I'd love to say I could laugh at Jim's line about Bush having integrity. But, truly, all I can do is cry about the fact that somebody could actually believe that kind of bullshit.
Iowa Jim, I feel really bad for you, man. You sound really lost, concidering that you still back this guy. Without a doubt he has been a great deservice to this Country and it's Constitution, his policies and leadership have wronged this country in such a way that he's going to leave so much baggage that it's going to take years... YEARS... to fix! And that will be left on some schmucks lap, who would want to be President after this at this rate? Under his watch, 5,000 American Civillians died, plus 3,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq. Dont even get me started on good, honest Iraqis being killed by the thousands!
Thats a damn big body count.
now, do we really want to talk about Money? Or, the mind knumbingly literal LOSS OF BILLIONS in Iraq? Literal PALLETS OF U.S. CURRENCY GONE! And America doesn't even blink. And people support the shmuck who had this happen under his watch.
Or let's talk about why leaders shouldn't be messing with the people who shed blood, spy, and steal in this countries name? When leaders, for simple political rational, betray an agent of this country while they are under cover.
This will not end well at this rate. America needs to step up and take a hard look at the facts. Not your "feelings" or Prayers, look at the facts!
Speaking of sounding lost, another gem from Cheney today, talking about the House:
"They're not supporting the troops. They're undermining them," Cheney told a gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition
It's really time for Dick to get in touch with reality.
You know, I need to expand on that thought.
You know what Dick is really saying?
He's saying the American people don't support the troops. That the American people are undermining them.
Because we made a statement last fall by voting out a bunch of Republicans, and it was a slap in the face to Bush, who continues to think he can run this country like a dictator, damn anyone that dares get in his way.
Well, it's time for Bush & Co, people like Dick, to take a hint.
You know, for someone who hasn't been right about a single thing in regards to Iraq since 1991, Dick always seems quick to condemn anyone who doesn't agree with him.
Once again, the old saying proves true:
History keeps repeating itself because we weren't paying attention the first time.
- Frank
Some people think the attitude Bush presents -- the commitment to fight 'the enmey', the determination to continue fighting in Iraq, the division of the world to those who are with us and those who are not, the uncompromising commitment to issues conservatives value, the use of words like freedom and values -- is integrity. But I think the understanding of the complexity of the issues, of different points of view, of recognizing one's mistakes, are also necessary for someone to have integrity.
Bush's determination when it comes to
Without a doubt [W.] has been a great deservice to this Country and it's Constitution, his policies and leadership have wronged this country in such a way that he's going to leave so much baggage that it's going to take years... YEARS... to fix!,/b>
Years? You're optimistic. I will consider us, the US, truly blessed if the amount of time it takes to undo the damage our current President has wreaked is measured in decades rather than generations.
Posted by: Sasha at March 25, 2007 02:28 PM
Years? You're optimistic. I will consider us, the US, truly blessed if the amount of time it takes to undo the damage our current President has wreaked is measured in decades rather than generations.
I think you need to gain some perspective. I'm no fan of George W. Bush, as my posts will show. But we've had truly awful presidents before and the nation has survived.
Richard Nixon deepened our involvement in Vietnam at the cost of many, many lives before getting us out of there, and was more scandal-plagued than Bush. Our nation survived Nixon and we will survive Bush. It will not take us "generations" to overcome this.
What would be nice, however, is if we as a nation would learn some lessons from history. Iraq had "Vietnam" written all over it in big, easy-to-see glowing neon letters. How could we as a nation have repeated this mistake so quickly? When will we finally get a clue and stop marching headlong into stupid, unnecessary, and costly wars?
It would also be nice to have a president that doesn't repeat the mistakes of his or her predecessors. In a nation where people get to vote for there leaders, and where there is a (relatively) free press, the president simply can't just do whatever he or she pleases and sweep every mistake and misdeed under the rug. This is especially true in today's age of instant and ubiquitous information in the form of the Internet and 24-hour news networks.
Nixon didn't invade Vietnam then win reelection. The damage done by this administration is unprecedented.
Mike wrote: "Nixon didn't invade Vietnam then win reelection. The damage done by this administration is unprecedented."
Mike, if you honestly believe that, then all I can say is you don't know your U.S. history.
Folks,
Where was all the fuss when Bill Clinton fired 93 US attorneys? The cult of hypocrisy has many members.
Where is all the fuss over Sandy Berger stealing documents from the National Achives?
Why was Clinton allowed to testify while not under oath about 9/11?
Why has the press barely covered the fact that Chlorine gas is being used in car bombings? (weapon of mass destruction?)
Okay, Pat, one more time for posterity's sake, then you're shrouded.
When Bill Clinton fired all 93 attorneys appointed by his predecessor (as had Ronald Reagan before him, at the least), it was done at the beginning of his term, in order to "clear the decks" of the previous administration's political appointments and install his own. This is common practice - at the beginning of an Administration. What Bush has done is, he fired eight US attorneys in the middle of his second term, and then offered at least three conflicting reasons for it, with two (so far) conflicting backstories (neither one of which accords with the e-mail exchanges released so far).
"All the fuss" over Sandy Berger's offense was located when it should have been, at the time of the offense. That was years ago.
If Clinton was allowed to testify while not under oath before the 9/11 Commission (which fact I am currently unable to verify or dispute), it would most likely have been because the 9/11 Commission was not a Congressional subcommittee, but rather a special commission created by Congress, and was not investigating the actions of a sitting President, but rather the circumstances surrounding the 9/11 attacks. (Otherwise, there might have been a few more questions about why it took so long for "the Decider" to react, or why the President's location was always public, while the Vice-President, presumably more expendable, was secreted away in a bunker somewhere.)
Oddly, I seem to have seen plenty of coverage of the use of IEDs hidden in trucks of chlorine gas tanks. There was even the coverage the other day of an actual chlorine gas bomb, used on a US military base. I don't know what press you're reading/watching (unless Faux News glossed over the story - can't say as I watch that...).
Now, would you mind terribly reading over the thread (where these topics have been covered exhaustively, by better debaters than I) before popping in with your misinformed opinions? Or are you, like another recent poster, merely a professional shit-stirrer, preferring a good game of "Let's You and Him Fight" to an honest discussion of issues?
I am sorry to interrupt the political discussions but I have a question for PAD. I have just finished reading (for the third time) your Babylon 5 trilogy and was wondering with the new dvds in the works and hopefully re-newed interest, if there would be any chance of new novels."
There's always a chance, but if Joe's got something in the pipeline, he hasn't told me about it.
PAD
Posted by: Pat Nolan at March 25, 2007 06:09 PM
Where was all the fuss when Bill Clinton fired 93 US attorneys? The cult of hypocrisy has many members.
As does the cult of cluelessness, apparently.
As has been pointed out several times in this thread, Clinton's fired ALL 93 US Attorneys at the beginning of his administration in order to replace his predecessor's appointees with his own. Bush, on the other hand, fired eight of his own appointees, in the middle of his second term and his administration has yet to offer a credible explanation for that. The two situations aren't comparable.
By the way, were you living in hole in the ground without electricity, contact with other human beings, and modern plumbing facilities during the Clinton administration? Every time Clinton wiped his nose there was an outcry from Republicans in Congress and a significant swath of the public -- and the media was always happy to play it up.
Posted by: Pat Nolan at March 25, 2007 06:09 PM
Why has the press barely covered the fact that Chlorine gas is being used in car bombings? (weapon of mass destruction?)
Because after four years we've had one poison gas attack.
Just.
ONE.
And given the security situation in Iraq, for all we know the stuff came from outside the country.
Anyway, steering back to sanity...
Two of the fired U.S. Attorneys were on "Meet the Press" this morning. David Iglesias, former U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, stated that just before last year's mid-term elections he received two phone calls, one from U.S. Rep. Heather Wilson, and the other from Senator Pete Domenici, both Republicans from New Mexico. They wanted to know if Iglesias was going to file corruption charges against certain local Democrats prior to the November election -- something that could have helped Wilson in her election battle with then New Mexico State Attorney General Patricia Madrid. Iglesias stated that he felt "pressured" and "leaned on" by these calls. Nevertheless, he did NOT file charges prior to the election, probably because it wasn't yet appropriate to do so. Six weeks later, Iglesias was asked to resign.
Gee, what do YOU think happened here?
By the way, those people who believe that Clinton's firing of all 93 US Attorneys was improper because one of them was investigating then Democractic U.S. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski are forgetting something -- Rostenskowski was later convicted. And no one was fired because of THAT.
By the way, those people who believe that Clinton's firing of all 93 US Attorneys was improper because one of them was investigating then Democractic U.S. Rep. Dan Rostenkowski are forgetting something -- Rostenskowski was later convicted
The attorney involved was also allowed to finish the investigation, I believe, as well.
Mike wrote: "Are you under the impression Nixon invaded Vietnam?"
Are you asking me?
If so, of course not. Nixon inherited Kennedy's and Johnson's mess.
My comment was directed towards the latter sentence you wrote, namely, "The damage this administration caused is unprecedented."
That's wrong on so many levels, I can't even begin to respond. Historically, from a monetary, "restriction-of-freedom" or cost-in-human-lives standpoint, Bush II is a lightweight.
Those who insist Bush II is some kind of presidential Anti-Christ are kidding themselves, in my opinion. Either that, or they are just trying to make a lot of noise about Bush II to divert attention from the fact that THEIR politicians have no solutions to the serious problems facing this country, either.
Those who insist Bush II is some kind of presidential Anti-Christ are kidding themselves, in my opinion.
In many respect, I've no doubt that you're correct in that assessment. Just to give you a data point, however, there are two main reasons that I am about as vehemently anti-Bush as it's possible to be while remaining (generally) sane.
1) Bush is the first such "alleged anti-Christ" I've had the opportunity to vote and campaign against. Nixon resigned while I was still in nursery school, so I don't have that same sort of visceral reaction ... and Reagan wasn't nearly evil enough to merit the title. (For what it's worth, both of my parents did and do have a visceral dislike of ol' Tricky Dick, and both have said many times in the past couple of years that they consider Shrub far, far worse.)
2) Bush, more than any president whose career I've followed, absolutely embodies several qualities guaranteed to hit all my hot buttons. Spoiled rich kid who's never had to get out of a jam by himself? Check. Diehard believer that "gut" beats knowledge and study? Check. President who's done more than any other to treat science and research as nothing more than another special interest group and another "opinion" to be discounted when relevant? Check and mate.
Speaking purely and only for myself, that's why I personally think Bush II is one of the single worst public figures to hit this country in a long, long time, and why I hope one day to see him take this country so far back in time that he winds up literally tarred and feathered.
And just to add another data point, my uncle is the only conservative Republican in my family (at least on my mom's side ... my dad's side and I try not to bring politics up :-). Even he thinks Bush has done a piss-poor job and has said that he expects the Democrats to win in '08 and deserve to.
TWL
My comment was directed towards the latter sentence you wrote, namely, "The damage this administration caused is unprecedented."
That's wrong on so many levels, I can't even begin to respond. Historically, from a monetary, "restriction-of-freedom" or cost-in-human-lives standpoint, Bush II is a lightweight.
There's nothing lightweight about the $2 billion a week spent on the Iraq occupation, or the $1.2 trillion givaway to pharmaceutical companies that's going to deplete medicare in 12 years. If you can cite a more severe mismanagement of public funds by a president, I'd like to here it.
Posted by: R. Maheras at March 25, 2007 09:57 PM
My comment was directed towards the latter sentence [Mike] wrote, namely, "The damage this administration caused is unprecedented."
That's wrong on so many levels, I can't even begin to respond.
It is indeed untrue that what Bush has done is "unprecedented." Presidents have unwisely committed this nation to war in the past, at great cost.
Mike is somewhat correct in his assertions, though. Nixon didn't commit us to Vietnam. Eisenhower got us involved; JFK kept us there; LBJ really escalated things; and Nixon further escalated the war before accepting a peace offer that was identical to one offered by the enemy prior to that last, costly escalation.
Nevertheless, it is absurd to say that what Bush has done is "unprecedented." Nixon didn't initiate the Vietnam War but he did escalate it. He stubbornly continued a failed policy at great cost. Bush is doing the same.
Posted by: R. Maheras at March 25, 2007 09:57 PM
Historically, from a monetary, "restriction-of-freedom" or cost-in-human-lives standpoint, Bush II is a lightweight.
And now you're just as wrong as Mike, having leaped from one crazy extreme to the other. George W. Bush deceived this nation into going to war in Iraq. The cost cannot be calculated merely in terms of the casualty count as it stands today or the money spent to date. Bush has destabilized a region where there were already threats to our national security. He has made our nation less safe. We may not know the full price of Bush's incompetence for some time to come.
Posted by: R. Maheras at March 25, 2007 09:57 PM
Those who insist Bush II is some kind of presidential Anti-Christ are kidding themselves, in my opinion.
Bush has divided this country at a time when it needed to be united. He has bungled the war against Islamic terrorism. He has proven unable to learn from his own mistakes, and incapable of objectively measuring the success, or lack thereof, of his policies. He has undermined people's faith in government to lead at a time when we needed real leadership more than we have in decades. He has eroded our military capacity, saddled us with a massive deficit, lied to us, and made us less safe.
Is he the worst president ever? I doubt it. But he is one of the worst. Of that I have no doubt.
I think you need to gain some perspective. I'm no fan of George W. Bush, as my posts will show. But we've had truly awful presidents before and the nation has survived.
Richard Nixon deepened our involvement in Vietnam at the cost of many, many lives before getting us out of there, and was more scandal-plagued than Bush. Our nation survived Nixon and we will survive Bush. It will not take us "generations" to overcome this.
I'm not saying that Bush has so utterly fucked the country that my childrens' childrens' children will be in debtor's prison or in Iraq due to W's policies. I know that even this to shall pass.
What I mean is that the total damage he's done (namely to our relations with our allies, America's "soft power", our credibility, reputation as the World's Moral Beacon, radicalizing at least one generation of young Muslims, etc.) will take a very long time to reset (if ever) to pre-W levels. The taint of the USA being a country that normalized torture, if only briefly, is something that will haunt America's prestige and soul for a good long while.
Posted by: Tim Lynch at March 25, 2007 10:13 PM
Spoiled rich kid who's never had to get out of a jam by himself?
Tim, I think this thought deserves to be examined further. George W. Bush was all for the Vietnam war... but his daddy made sure he wouldn't have to fight it himself. Hell, it doesn't even appear that he finished is piece-of-cake non-combat tour of duty in the National Guard.
Bush ran a number of businesses into the ground. But being from a rich family, he himself never had to suffer the financial consequences. Those were for lesser people, like investors and employees who were left holding the proverbial bag.
Bush's parents did him -- and by extension, the nation -- the ultimate disservice by bailing him out and propping him up with their money: they convinced him that he was someone better than he is. Bush is clearly a below-average individual who erroneously believes himself to be someone great. He doesn't realize the extent to which his parent's money has propelled him to an undeserved station in life. He has never had to suffer the consequences of his actions, and therefore doesn't recongize his limitations.
Mind you, I am not one who believes every rich person is a spoiled, undeserving incompetent. But I do believe that description suits George W. Bush to a "tee."
Bush's parents did him -- and by extension, the nation -- the ultimate disservice by bailing him out and propping him up with their money: they convinced him that he was someone better than he is. Bush is clearly a below-average individual who erroneously believes himself to be someone great. He doesn't realize the extent to which his parent's money has propelled him to an undeserved station in life. He has never had to suffer the consequences of his actions, and therefore doesn't recongize his limitations.
Mind you, I am not one who believes every rich person is a spoiled, undeserving incompetent. But I do believe that description suits George W. Bush to a "tee."
Indeed. W is the absolute epitome of "Born on third base and thinks he hit a triple."
Art Bell just made the Watergate connection on 'Coast to Coast AM.'
-Chris
Mind you, I am not one who believes every rich person is a spoiled, undeserving incompetent. But I do believe that description suits George W. Bush to a "tee."
I'm not one who believes that either, just to clarify. Given the particular socioeconomic level of the schools I've taught in, I've had a chance to see a great many teenagers who are (usually) fairly well off. Some of them have fit my description above, but most haven't. As is often the case, it usually comes down to the parenting.
And with that, it's off to get ready for my first day of classes after spring break. :-)
TWL
Bush is definitely the worst president in my living memory (Like Tim, I was in nursery school during Watergate). Time will tell if the damage he's done to our ability to negotiate with the world and to stand as a bullwark of morality and freedom is irreversible. I really hope that the next president can ask for a clean slate, but that individual will have their work cut out for them.
I notice another induhvidual has posted the "Clinton did it and it was unprecented" meme. Sigh. I give up. I'm convinced that there's always going to be a certain percentage of people who will just repeat whatever talking points Hannity and issue them and will continue repeating them long after they're been proven wrong. I guess some will always find a lie more comfortable to cling to rather than dealing with the fact that this administration is a disaster.
I see no one wants to answer my question about what the "Clinton did it" defense is always the first thing the "morally superior" Bushites always trot out.
Oh well.
Anyone watch Battlestar Galactica last night? Given the Cylons' obsession with being an instrument of God, I can only draw one conclusion:
Bob Dylan is God.
Discuss.
"Time will tell if the damage he's done to our ability to negotiate with the world and to stand as a bullwark of morality and freedom is irreversible."
The US has had a pretty bad reputation during the cold war and even afterwards. So long as you're richest industrial nation, the only super power, nobody else better takes the job, the rest of the world will still looks for leadership, and you still have the cultural influence, you'll still have a significant diplomatic importance. Which is not to say that bush caused harm to your standing, but you'll recover.
Re: Nixon / Vietnam. If you compare Nixon to Bush, Bush is probably worse. If you compare the turmoil and damage on all levels during Vietnam to that of Iraq, Vietnam was worse, and you recovered from it resonably fast. So cheer up.
since you serve a necessary purpose in the world when Bush is out the world will want to give you another opportunity to do things differently, except the ones that really hate you.
Nixon didn't commit us to Vietnam. Eisenhower got us involved; JFK kept us there; LBJ really escalated things; and Nixon further escalated the war before accepting a peace offer that was identical to one offered by the enemy prior to that last, costly escalation.
Nevertheless, it is absurd to say that what Bush has done is "unprecedented."
You cited the damage of four administrations to match the damage of one bowl of George W Bush. Also, you cited no mismanagement of public funds by a president more severe than the $2 billion a week spent on the Iraq occupation, or the $1.2 trillion givaway to pharmaceutical companies that's going to deplete medicare in 12 years.
unprecedented, adj. having no precedent : NOVEL, UNEXAMPLED
The word applies.
whatever talking points Hannity and issue them
Ugh.
Should have been "whatever talking points Hannity and Rush issue them"
That is, when Rush isn't accusing Edwards of using his wife's cancer to ge a "spike" in the polls.
God, why anyone listens to these despicable trolls is beyond me.
Not to mention the "unprecedented" pallets full of money that were shipped to Iraq and simply vanished.
"Anyone watch Battlestar Galactica last night? Given the Cylons' obsession with being an instrument of God, I can only draw one conclusion:
Bob Dylan is God.
Discuss."
Except that from the sound of those guitars, the Super-Secret Final Five Activation Signal(tm) was the Jimi Hendrix cover. This correlates to the fact that Ron Moore had, at one point, considered ending Season One by having the Colonials follow the strains of a Hendrix song to find the Cylon God (as played by Dirk Benedict) (and thank the Lords of Kobol he dropped that idea!).
Therefore, Jimi Hendrix is God.
Discuss further. :-)
"Anyone watch Battlestar Galactica last night? Given the Cylons' obsession with being an instrument of God, I can only draw one conclusion:
Bob Dylan is God.
Discuss."
Except that from the sound of those guitars, the Super-Secret Final Five Activation Signal(tm) was the Jimi Hendrix cover of "All Along the Watchtower". This correlates to the fact that Ron Moore had, at one point, considered ending Season One by having the Colonials follow the strains of a Hendrix song to find the Cylon God (as played by Dirk Benedict) (and thank the Lords of Kobol he dropped that idea!).
Therefore, Jimi Hendrix is God.
Discuss further. :-)
As much as I personally prefer Hendrix's version over Dylan's, Dylan did write the song, so credit for godhood should be his.
They're both gods. what makes that song so great is the way Hendrix plays it as much as how Dylan wrote it.
I don't think we should be discussing the Season Finale of BSG on this thread. I get the general impression that PAD will often record these things and watch them several days later. No one's dropped a spoiler in here yet, but discussion would be limited by talking around them. Plus I think that he be justifiably annoyed if we started putting BSG spoiler info in this political thread. I'd discuss such things in his "Motherfrakers" thread, if at all.
I agree with David Hunt. Neither the title of this thread nor PAD's initial post warn of any kind of spoilers. And this particular episode of BSG was chock-a-block full of big surprises. I don't think it's appropriate to post about it here. If PAD decides to set aside a thread to discuss it, that's where we should comment.
So Say We All.
I apologize if the tangent I started has caused any discomfort.
Let's go back to talking about what lying weasels the Bushites are. :-/
Worst Presidents Ever:
5. William McKinley--Phillipine Conflict 50K US casualties. Corporate Lapdog
4. Millard Fillmore: signed Fugitive Slave Act into law.
3. Rutherfold B Hayes, Through the Election of 1876, Reconstruction ended with a compromise between Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats. Sam Tilden won the majority vote.
2. James Polk: Fabricated the Mexican War and expanded the US and thus the slavery debate past the ideals of the Compromise of 1820-->agrivated Civil War causes.
1. Andrew Johnson. Gave easy deals to former Confederates and when mobs in the South were massacring African American men, women, and children, reponded by saying something to the effect of, "America was made for the White man only."
I think BushII and Nixon come in 6 and 7 respectively.
--Captain Naraht
I'd Bush "ahead" of Hayes. While he did lose the popular vote and was a rather weak president because of it, he did make significant progress in reforming the civil service rules. I'd move him to 7, put Bush at 1 and move everyone else down the list.
1. GWB
2. Andrew Johnson
3. Polk
4. Fillmore
5. McKinley
6. Nixon
7. Hayes
Number 8: James Buchanan, whose wishy-washy approach to the slavery issue and the south in general did as much to set the stage for the Civil War as Lincoln's election did.
"Captain Naraht's" list gives good reason why the presidents he names would go on the "worst presidents" list, though I don't know if I'd include Hayes unless he'd personally orchestrated the compromise to include the end of reconstruction.
However, here's a key reason why George W. belongs ahead of all of them. Those men were all president during the 19th century (excepting McKinley, who was assassinated in 1901, the first year of the 20th century), when the United States had nowhere near superpower status. Most of the damage caused by poor decisions by those presidents (or members of their administrations) affected the U.S. alone.
By contrast, Bush is president of the world's only superpower, and his poor decisions regarding the war in Iraq (among other issues) have had serious international repercussions. That's not to say there were no international repercussions because of 19th century presidential blunders, but they didn't have anywhere near the same impact in the same amount of time. Faster communications and means of transportation now allow for things to go wrong much more quickly than they did then.
So, George W. wins the "worst president ever" contest, in my opinion. And let's hope he's the worst ever, not the worst, so far. Others may have been more incompetent, overall, but they held office when the United States played a less significant role on the world stage.
Nixon was bad, too; but nowhere near as bad as Bush. All things being equal, I'd rather have Nixon back.
Rick
Rick, you DON'T want Nixon back. Watergate was just the tip of the iceberg of his corruption. And at one time he seriously contemplated using nukes in Vietnam.
It is far too early to know what George W. Bush's place in history will be. I appreciate the strong feelings that everyone is bringing to this discussion, but I suspect those feelings are coloring your judgment and skewing your perpsective. I believe it will be decades, at least, before historians are really able to place Bush's presidency into historical context with any degree of objectivity.
That said, I do believe Bush is unequivocally the worst president we've had in my lifetime, which will have spanned 37 years come this August.
Comments regarding some recent discussion items:
WAR DEATHS -- Although, as a former active-duty servicemember, I consider the death of even one soldier in a conflict a sacrifice, the fact is that the war deaths in both Iraq (OIF) and Afghanistan (OEF) have been light compared to other U.S. conflicts in the past 100 years.
Total combat/non-combat deaths:
OEF/OIF: 3,443
Vietnam: 58,209
Korea: 36,574
WW II: 405,399
WW I: 116,516
(Ref: http://siadapp.dior.whs.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/castop.htm)
WAR COSTS -- Depending on different sources, the cost in dollars for WW II far eclipses anything we’ve spent on, or plan to spend on, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, it has eclipsed the cost of the Korean War, and will most likely eventually exceed the cost of the Vietnam War.
Regarding the costs of the Korean War, however, there is one huge caveat that no one ever talks about -- the cost of that conflict did not end in 1953 when the cease fire was signed. We have been paying for a continual major troop presence in Korea for an additional 54 years and counting, at a cost (in today’s dollars) of what even a conservative estimate would put in the one- or two-trillion-dollar range. It could actually be closer to four trillion -- putting it into the ballpark of the raw costs of WW II. The reason I say raw costs of WW II, is because, like South Korea, we spent a ton of money to rebuild, and then permanently build bases in, Germany, Japan and Italy. Putting an actual dollar cost on what our post-WW II stabilizing and permanent Cold War basing efforts were for the U.S. is staggering.
In short, the cost of OEF/OIF compared to the cost of WW II, Korea and the Cold War puts it at a distant fourth. Ref: